Disloyal characters are overly punitive.

[BFHKitteh]

Yes, it's a strategy game, and the shtick of the genre for the past decade is 'make things that stop the player from playing the game'. I get it, people want to have roadblocks instead of just painting the map.

Having a mechanic that says- 'no, you literally can't do anything for a few decades' is not an answer.

One disloyal person out of dozens shouldn't be able to just have a coup, that's not remotely realistic for starters. ONE guy in my court- who I can't do anything about, because there's zero mechanics for actually interacting with the 'characters', is just going to stop me from moving my entire army until he dies, or I get a 1/100 roll for an RGD that let's me do something (theoretically).

I played 3 short games to learn the mechanics, then I rerolled the game 5 times to get a start that had no disloyal characters, JUST SO I could actually play the game- and now, 20 turns in, I 'find out' the loyalty of one character, and it's negative. So my game is over, he's going to somehow convince a dozen other loyal characters that they should overthrow the dynasty, and I have to start from scratch. Again.

Why is this even a thing? I personally can't stand this new wave of strategy games that tacks on a partly-designed 'dynasty management' mechanic that only exists to hamstring the player for the entire game. So I know I am a bit biased.

I still don't understand how you could even know the loyalty of someone? Surely a person that is plotting to take over the kingdom would keep their goals secret? If anything, they would seem like the most loyal person in the whole kingdom... It's the same thing in all of these games- Crusader Kings, Total War, Imperator Rome are the two that come to mind. I can SOMEHOW know EXACTLY how loyal someone is, but then I'm usually not even given the tools to take care of it- or if I am given the tools, then I am punished for even using them? Like- if I know that he is disloyal- then the entire court knows that he is disloyal. If they are loyal, would they not protect the king? Surely everyone would agree to just lock him in the dungeon and forget he exists?

So anyway, can you guys just scrap this mechanic until you come up with something original, and not just copy pasted from every other half-baked strategy game that's released in the past decade? The rest of the game is wonderfully thought out and designed, then this glob of crap is sitting in the middle of it all, ruining the whole pie.

There's only two situations where a coup should happen- someone that is very ambitious wants the power, or the king is poor leader and the whole court wants to replace him.

Moving the ONLY army I can afford off my capitol and having my dynasty replaced, for literally no good reason, is not a playable game mechanic. It destroys the game.

The real icing on the cake is that, if I don't know his loyalty, I can operate as normal. But then as soon as I know he is disloyal, he will coup seemingly immediately if I move my army? So I am incentivized to just not learn the loyalty of my court...

Reading through the manual, the only thing I can think of to actually deal with this mechanic reliably, is to give them a 1 unit army and throw them at independents so they die? The wording is not very clear, it's never explicitly spelled out, but it seems like just having him in a 1 unit army will prevent him from couping, and make him rebel instead?

[Grognerd]

My personal opinion is, the loyalty system is an interesting sub-game, but takes some practice to get used to.

One thing that has thrown a lot of people is that to interact with characters and their loyalty, you need to play Regional Decisions (RGDs). But RGDs are played on regions (hence their name) and not characters. So, Spy on Nobility played on your capital randomly targets two unassigned characters in your court (or a governor posted their, or the leaders of armies parked there). This is not an efficient way to do it. The loyalty of your wife or courtesans is not very useful information.

So, to discover and boost the loyalty of the characters you really care about, you have to put them in as Peers of some backwater province, then play RGDs on that provincial capital. This is admittedly counter-intuitive, placing characters you do not trust in a position of power, in order to affect them. But barring an interface overhaul allowing characters to be targeted directly, this is just they way it is. IMHO, I can live with this. It works!

Spy on Nobility is so important that I will double-green it on Turn 1. In my current Fatimid MP game, I had a 2-2 general join my court mid-game, so I immediately placed him in charge of Sinai and began bombarding him with SoN and Gift to Peer RGDs. I had more GtPs than SoNs, so I discovered something interesting: after my last Gift, I got a message that the Peer was unimpressed by my gift. Then a turn later, I finally discovered his loyalty was 100. So lesson learned: When a Peer turn's his nose up at your gift, that *probably* means the gift had no effect because his loyalty was already maxxed at 100. Interesting!

So I'm still discovering little nuances about the system. Can it be improved? No doubt. A "Gift to General" RGD would be a nice thing to add perhaps, so command of a peasant brigade would suffice to bribe him?

One last observation, I LOVE the fact that many times (especially if your Spy on Nobility efforts have been lacking) the only guy whose loyalty you can be sure of is your monarch. This game has made it so that I will put my 0-0 Pampered king in charge of my main army in wartime, because the game has made me sooo paranoid! I don't know of any other game that does this. It's kinda awesome, IMO.

[loki1006]

Afraid you've misunderstood a lot actually. So coups, only really a risk if you have a low admin ruler (& then they can be rather handy), so if they are 3 or better then simply leaving a disloyal character unassigned will be fine

The other safety net is an army with a loyal general in the capital, this can often be usefully led by the PoTR governing that region. You can also use this stack to train up newly raised formations, or repair damaged units, pushing reinforcements out to your field armies.

A character with unknown loyalty can coup.

Another part of the solution is a domestic spy network. In turn that generates (regularly) the RGD about spy on the nobility, so you should be able to be aware of all but the most recent additions to your realm.

Across a game, I'd expect to lose my dynasty at least once, probably twice - seems fairly realistic. yes its a pain for legacy but it reflects one the dynamics of the era.

there are a number of RGD that can be used to dispose of a disloyal character. I tend not to use them and rely on the approach above - works pretty well. But if for some reason you really want them out of the way its worth holding a couple back for when they are needed,

[BFHKitteh]

You both just took my entire argument and ignored it, then told me that you enjoy not being able to actually interact with characters in an any meaningful way.

If you play any small country, you literally can't do anything, because ONE disloyal person in the entire kingdom will simply prevent you from moving your army.

How is this fun?

If I wanted to flip a coin to tell me if I can actually play the game, I'll do that before I hit the play game button, and I'll go play something else instead?

I've tried 4 times to play Apulia and Calabria, and I literally can't because of this mechanic. 4 runs have been ruined in 30 turns or less. What is the point?

ONE PERSON CANNOT COUP A COUNTRY BY THEMSELVES THE WHOLE MECHANIC MAKES NO SENSE, JUST AS IN EVERY OTHER GAME THAT HAS IT. IT JUST EXISTS TO PUNISH THE PLAYER FOR BUYING THE GAME.

And having a leader with admin 3 DOES NOT prevent coups? Where are you getting this from? Apulia starts with an Admin 3 leader, and if I move my army, I get couped?

Why do I have to wait dozens of turns to get an RGD to be able to move my starting army?

Spying on my nobles just shows me that there's several disloyal characters, which means I have to wait dozens of turns per character to get an RGD so I can finally move my army?

How does any of this make any sense?

Meanwhile the Ai is eating Sicily and I just have to sit and watch while I wait? The whole point of the campaign is that I'm supposed to unite Southern Italy. How am I supposed to do this if one guy is allowed to coup me if I move my army, and I have no counterplay, without wasting turns waiting for RGDs?

[PatRat]

There's plenty of times during the real life medieval period, where a ruler was obliged to appoint someone they didn't trust to positions of power.

I'm currently reading a massive history of Byzantium, and every few pages someone is either plotting or executing a coup. So I think the games system is fairly realistic. It would be even more realistic is you never knew anyone's real loyalty. But people would probably scream if that was implemented. Lol

BTW I haven't had a coup yet in my 2 campaigns as Aragon or France. I appoint the most loyal guy to govern my capital and main army. Then I risk the unknown guys on everything else until I can spy on them. The low loyalty guys I either just leave at court, or I appoint them to a province in the boon docks and do away with them asap. I rarely risk my ruler in battle unless theres no one else i can trust, or he is total loser and I'm trying to have him die a glorious death for the motherland.

Unless you are playing a country like Byzantium, or another country with a similar trait, you might be doing something wrong if you're getting so many coups.

Note: People who aren't experienced in the game yet, should not be playing the minor countries. It seems like most of the complaints in the forums, come from new players, playing one of the small countries.

[Hannibal0216 도마도 재배자]

If you keep your low loyalty characters at court and don't give them an army or a governorship, they have very low chances of rebelling, especially if there is an army in the capital. I am 350 turns into my game and I have had only one rebellion.

[Hannibal0216 도마도 재배자]

also in the newest patch notes:

DYNASTY & CHARACTERS
- Reworked coup chances so that a loyal army at the capital is more efficient.
- Less rebellion chances for generals with 26-50 loyalty, but more if 25 or lower. Do not risk naming as
general a character with loyalty 25!

[diji]

Originally posted by loki1006:

The other safety net is an army with a loyal general in the capital, this can often be usefully led by the PoTR governing that region. You can also use this stack to train up newly raised formations, or repair damaged units, pushing reinforcements out to your field armies.

Doesn't a peer leading an army suffer -1 to their stats for ruling, so wouldn't it be better to have someone else as the general?

[PatRat]

I didn't know about the penalty. I never noticed one. Thanks for the tip.

If he is just sitting with his army in the capital guarding against coups, the penalty probably doesn't matter. But as you say, it's probably best to not have him leading a field army unless you have no choice. I'd rather have a loyal but handicapped general than one who will rebal.

[loki1006]

Originally posted by diji:

Originally posted by loki1006:

The other safety net is an army with a loyal general in the capital, this can often be usefully led by the PoTR governing that region. You can also use this stack to train up newly raised formations, or repair damaged units, pushing reinforcements out to your field armies.

Doesn't a peer leading an army suffer -1 to their stats for ruling, so wouldn't it be better to have someone else as the general?

no the penalty only kicks in if they are leading an army outside their province.

so on the assumption that you want someone loyal in the first place (to rule that particular province) and you don't really care about their military stats then they are a good choice as it doesn't tie up someone who would be more useful elsewhere

[loki1006]

Originally posted by BFHKitteh:

You both just took my entire argument and ignored it, then told me that you enjoy not being able to actually interact with characters in an any meaningful way.

If you play any small country, you literally can't do anything, because ONE disloyal person in the entire kingdom will simply prevent you from moving your army.

....

ONE PERSON CANNOT COUP A COUNTRY BY THEMSELVES THE WHOLE MECHANIC MAKES NO SENSE, JUST AS IN EVERY OTHER GAME THAT HAS IT. IT JUST EXISTS TO PUNISH THE PLAYER FOR BUYING THE GAME.

And having a leader with admin 3 DOES NOT prevent coups? Where are you getting this from? Apulia starts with an Admin 3 leader, and if I move my army, I get couped?

Why do I have to wait dozens of turns to get an RGD to be able to move my starting army?

....

well we both gave you practical advice on how to handle the situation. So a bit more

a) its not CK100 or whatever, so there is indeed less character interaction

b) there are bigger problems for Apulia than loyalty, my general advice is for early games don't play a realm that is a county, the authority mechanics demand some game knowledge to manage. If you want to start small, something like Georgia is good as you are well under the demesne limit

c) of course they can, and really " IT JUST EXISTS TO PUNISH THE PLAYER FOR BUYING THE GAME" is a fairly odd claim. I believe everyone involved in the four years of its development was actually aiming to produce a fun, if challenging, game - after all most of us are primarily players

d) no it doesn't stop it but a 0 or 1 will almost always get couped (& often that is exactly what you want)

e) with Apulia, you really have to start slow and cautious but that has nothing to do with the mechanic you are having problems with. But the solution is to alter the probabilities of certain cards - expensive but tor some factions really very important

f) generally early game, what are you worried over. Many coups keep the dynasty in place (so legacy accrues), loss of legacy at that stage really doesn't matter over the long game - it hurts if you get a coup on T350 and it triggers a dynasty change, not on T15.

[diji]

Originally posted by loki1006:

Originally posted by diji:

Doesn't a peer leading an army suffer -1 to their stats for ruling, so wouldn't it be better to have someone else as the general?

no the penalty only kicks in if they are leading an army outside their province.

so on the assumption that you want someone loyal in the first place (to rule that particular province) and you don't really care about their military stats then they are a good choice as it doesn't tie up someone who would be more useful elsewhere

Oh ok, the manual didn't mention that so I just avoided doing it since I didn't want their admin stat to drop.

Edit: Oh I just found the part where it mentions that lol, it's in a different section though. 9.5.4. Peers of the Realm (p. 113):

While it is possible for someone to be both an army leader and
provincial governor, if deployed in an army and not within the
province he governs, a penalty of -1 to all 3 of their AMP values is
applied.

Thanks, I wouldn't have gone looking if you hadn't mentioned it!

[loki1006]

aye, one of those bits that ideally we should have cross-referenced on as its something that is relevant both in the PoTR and commander sections

[wingren013]

The fact that you cant interact with characters or do anything about loyalty other than waiting for an RGD and then giving them a position to play the RGD on (with no guarantee they will then become loyal) is bad.

I'm not really sure what the argument for non-interactive game mechanics is. Its a game, we should be able to influence things in some way. And I agree that a single disloyal character being able to coup is silly. There should be some sort of tipping point where enough disloyal characters control enough stuff that enables a coup.

[PatRat]

You say that a single court member cant carry out a coup, but the game is an abstraction of real life. Those characters you have are just an abstraction of a real court. Those dozen or so characters you do have, are representing factions in the court. They each represent many other powerful people, who may or may not be court members.

[PocusFR]

A thing that is not too clear to me is whether the OP thinks that as soon as he moves his only army from his capital or puts a peer in charge of a province, he will have a coup, or if he has actually suffered from this repeatedly.

When he says this has ruined his Apulia run three times in 30 turns, is he saying he had three coups? That would be an extreme series of bad luck. As others have said, the chances of a coup from a court member (who does not have much money*) are very low.

Or perhaps he fears there will be a coup and then starts thinking everything in the game is designed to have a character backstab him as soon as he takes any action?

*: and you get money mostly from being in charge of a province.